Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: peterk who wrote (62059)	4/5/2007 2:09:50 PM
From: Stan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197124

OK, the arbitration request is Q's response. It was made very quickly, so I suspect that it was going to be filed even before Nokia made its tender offer. Assuming no court delays, by way of a refusal to arbitrate which would require a court order to force arbitration, arbitration usually takes about six months. The time is spent picking an arbitrator, getting a date for a hearing, the filing of briefs etc. It is a much faster process than going to court, but is not accomplished over night. Unless the Parties can agree on an expedited hearing and decision, it can drag out. Also of note is the fact that arbitration is a contractual matter. So several points must be made. First, does the royalty agreement contain an arbitration clause in it; and even if it does, does the requirement to arbitrate extend beyond the expiration of the agreement itself. If the answer to the first question is no, Nokia would have to agree to arbitrate, and this is doubtful. If the answer to the first question is yes, has Q protected its right to arbitrate by filing with the AAA prior to the expiration of the royaly agreement? The courts have ruled that some issues can be arbitrated after the expiration of a contract, but clearly not all issues, since there is no basic document in existence upon which to make a ruling. The beat goes on!

To: peterk who wrote (62059)	4/5/2007 2:12:28 PM
From: ohohyodafarted	Respond to of 197124

<< Nokia has no more right to unilaterally set a price than the average consumer has a right to walk into a store, take a product off the shelf, and walk out with it after leaving only a fraction of the established price on the counter. Leaving some money on the counter does not make the act any less unlawful>> WOW!! QCOM is reading this board. They said the exact same thing that Read Randall Knight's post 62020 <<Isn't that like me walking into Home Depot and handing the cashier $20 and walking out with what I think I should get for $20 despite what the current market rate is for those products? >>